[PATCH v5 01/14] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: platform definitions

Hi Jon,

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 00:28:15, Hunter, Jon wrote:

On 06/11/2012 09:26 AM, Afzal Mohammed wrote:

quoted

+enum {
+	has_none,
+	has_period,
+	has_clock
+};
+
+struct gpmc_time_ctrl {
+	int type;
+	struct gpmc_timings timings;
+	struct gpmc_misc_timings bool_timings;
+};

Why not combine misc_timings and the original timings? I don't see why
these need to be kept separate. Even if combined it can still be

To keep similar things together, as misc_timings are all bool type, while
existing are not so. This could have been put inside gpmc_timings, but
wanted to reduce chance of issues for users of old interface.

backward compatible for legacy boards as they will not specify the misc
timing fields. I am also not convinced we need this type member.

Reason: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap at vger.kernel.org/msg69041.html

Regards
Afzal